Apple has crippled iPadOS and consumers need the EU to force Apple to make moves that actually benefits the consumer. The fact that the real Chrome browser is not allowed on the iPad means the iPad as a web browsing machine is literally worse than a cheap Chromebook. Most developers put the majority of their effort to optimising their apps for the web and the best extensions are made for Chrome on desktop.
Safari is just a piece of junk. The only reason it has any marketshare at all on iOS and iPadOS is because Apple is being anticompetitive and doesn't have to compete with Google. When they do have to compete on MacOS, guess what. People are voting and the vast majority like and chose to install Chrome. Apple users claim Chrome users don't know any better and Safari is so much better but that's the argument Android and Windows users like to make about Apple users in general so that argument is moot.
> Apple has crippled iPadOS and consumers need the EU to force Apple to make moves that actually benefits the consumer
I won’t go into whether that’s true, but I don’t think the EU has any objection against companies selling (or attempting to sell) bad products.
The EU is acting because they think companies effectively do not have the choice of going around Apple to reach their customers, and that is limiting competition.
You like to beat this drum, it's not the first time I read it coming from your username but... It's not the reality, while you ignore companies like Ericsson and ASLM providing basic tenets for high-end manufacturing of network equipment and chips. ARM used to be in the EU until Brexit.
No, there are no flashy Amazons, Googles or Apples (or more frivolous and damaging stuff like AirBnbs, Ubers, etc.) from the EU but that doesn't mean it has lost the hardware and software dimension, if you meant "consumer hardware/software" I could give you a little more credit but since you've been beating the same dead horse for a long while on your anti-EU comments in HN it's pretty hard to start any meaningful conversation to understand your point of view.
You don't like the EU, that's ok, just try to bring more meaningful arguments than this childish us-vs-them that seems to crop up from you quite constantly when Europe is talked about around here.
The EU - "it would be a shame if something happened to your business model". idk it sounds like the EU is becoming more like organized crime in how they act - "and hey we need you to make a way to break E2E encryption so we can monitor".
Business models do not have by their own virtue validity. They are only as valid as they are societally useful (and) as a side-effect produce economic value. Which can either be captured privately, or publically or on the consumer side (consumer surplus).
Not allowing iPadOS to be a full fledged OS, when it literally can (an iPad is just a Macbook Air with no keyboard at this point) is intentional attempt to reduce consumer surplus. The state can intervene to limit such technically unjustified attempts. And it should. And it does (thankfully).
Their business model can be whatever they like outside the EU. To do business inside the EU then you follow EU law, or you leave the EU market.
Apple doesn't have to do business here, they can leave if they think the regulatory environment is not favourable for their business needs. The vast majority of people here won't care much or at all.
Every government does this, it's a non-sequitur. The USA imposes tariffs to protect its companies/market (Boeing vs Embraer/Bombardier, Chinese steel and EVs, etc.) all the time.
If you want to do business in the EU you follow EU laws, you don't need to do business in the EU if you don't want to, it's your choice to abide by them or not. The incentive to participate is in the EU being a huge and rich market.
And arguably U.S. has more protectionist trade policy than EU.
It is in a trade war with China, it has always historically preferenced American auto makers (chicken tax) and it even goes so far as to discriminate its dear allies with Inflation Reduction Act.
Not to speak of "Buy American" laws which there's multiple (granted EU is "granted" "American" status under these laws -- but that can change at any time).
Europe's protectionism is mainly in foodstocks. And that protectionism is in part motivated by real reasons -- that of food safety (American cows injected by Bovine somatotropin, a harmful to humans, growth hormone, etc) or heritage (protected geographical status).
Conversely, Europe has a very liberal taxation regime for American corpos. That's why Ireland is the tax haven it is (same for Luxembourg and some others).
I agree with your description of the EU’s thinking, but I can’t see how they think it’s a valid argument. It’s like a company opening a drive-thru restaurant and then complaining that car manufacturers are gatekeeping them from their customers
Imagine there are only 2 brands of cars, and one of them disables the engine as soon as the driver wants to enter your drive-thru. Imagine also that this car brand operates a chain of drive-thru restaurants that their cars will happily visit.
Now extend this scenario with the fact that there are more and more types of food you can only get through drive-thru restaurants and old fashioned restaurants don't offer these anymore (because most people now expect all food to be provided by drive-thrus).
Most people just want to browse websites, they don't want an OS in a web browser running on their OS.
Web developers love chrome because it's turning the web browser into the lowest common denominator operating system. It's a terrible idea. I want native apps, I hate web-apps, I hate Electron apps. They all have UI tweaks that don't fit in with native apps, are typically slower and more bloated.
But because most web developers are useless, its all that is ever built these days.
> they don't want an OS in a web browser running on their OS.
IMHO that ship has sailed.
With the current state of the web, what JS needs to do and what it needs access to, any mainstream web browser needs to become an OS in all shape and form. Managing Skype or Zoom on the web is so far away from displaying Craiglist 20 years ago, and users sure want to be able to open a link and interact with the service without having to download an app.
And this acceleration in web "pages" becoming full fledge apps is of course partly caused by Apple and its control on what can and cannot be distributed in the AppStore and middlemanning all payments. And god forbid to have multiple versions of the same app with different users for instance.
Sure, but I don't want a web-app to be able to send me push notifications (all I've ever seen it used by is stupid websites sending what amounts to SPAM), or vibrate my device, or use the accelerometer.
~80% of web usage is looking at web-sites, and most of them are already a bloated mess of JS. If anything, the web would be much better if more sites were like craigslist. That ~20% is not worth the cost in terms of privacy, security, complexity, battery usage. I would rather a native app, or use a competing service that provides one.
You don't want that, but people are looking at gmail or google calendar on the web, and notifications are a huge QOL. Getting access to the accelerometer feels niche, but accessing the NFC chip, phone contacts, the camera or real time locations would be more common.
Dealing with the security and privacy aspects of those would be enough to get near the complexity of an OS. And to note...looking at the facebook app for instance, being native doesn't seem to be a protection from bloat, it will there either way.
On the web as a static thing, sure 80% of the web is fine as a static information. The 20% on the other hand are things we care a lot about, and I personally hate the "why don't you install our app?" prompt on every damn site. Reddit is the poster child of this, and god no I don't want their native app.
> You don't want that, but people are looking at gmail or google calendar on the web, and notifications are a huge QOL.
I look at the emails/calendar on the web _because_ I do not want notifications and other junk/distractions. I do not think it is big deal for people to have an email client app on their phone if they want their functionality.
The whole point it to give people options to get the feature they want.
I totally get that you prefer notification on your apps and no notification on the web, the same way people enjoy notifications on their watch and not on their phone, or only read their mail and calendar on their laptop and keep nothing on their phones, etc.
There is an infinite number of combinations of what people want, the whole purpose of these rulings is to let users manage the state they want instead of Apple dictating what is allowed or not solely based on their business interests, even if it those can align with your preferences for instance.
It is not about "infinite number of combinations", it is about browsers having some specific functionality as of now (not just in iOS), people preferring using web versions of apps on them because of that instead of installing apps, and app developers seeing that people use the web versions and saying "oh people are using the web versions, maybe we should give these the same functionality as the apps", disregarding that people _choose_ not to install their (crappy) apps exactly because of these "features" and "functionality", which usually mostly are about sucking your data and spamming you with ads.
All this apple-related HN web-browser drama is not about what _users_ want, it is only about what app developers and companies want.
Which is basically one of the reasons why I nowadays don't use GNOME, even though in the 1.0 days, I used to contribute to Gtkmm and have a small article doing advocacy for it on The C/C++ Users Journal.
> Most developers put the majority of their effort to optimising their apps for the web and the best extensions are made for Chrome on desktop.
You're changing one monopoly for another in the name of convenience. This is the wrong way to think. We have Firefox and Safari for a good reason, and should support them as to not make another IE.
Dark patterns in finding this setting that 99.999% of normies would not even know of, ever. But equally a plausible excuse that "there is a setting to shut it off". Right.
My experience with Arc (which I would assume would be heavier than Chrome) has been that it adds a lot of scary entries in the Resource Monitor App, but doesn't impact my day-to-day use on my 16 Gb M1 MBP.
With Safari, on the other hand, I've experienced audio stutter and delays when using resource intensive wep-apps like YouTube, Figma, Netflix and others.
That would be the case if the Netflix UI was a search box where you type in the name of a movie and then it starts playing.
The actual UI is a lot more complex. On the front page there are dozens of dynamic categories that are filled out with high-res thumbnail images, and the content starts autoplaying within a few seconds when you stop on an item.
Now, I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good interface (personally I hate overactive autoplay). But from an engineering POV, clearly there’s a bunch of prefetching and cache management that needs to happen to make that UI look seamless, without loading pauses or missing content at any step. And media caches do qualify as “resource intensive.”
I will choose Safari over Chrome any day. My main browser is Firefox, with Safari second. I don't have Chrome installed on any of my devices, and will stay away from it until the unfortunate day when Chrome is finally exactly synonymous with the Web.
What I want from my iPad is to be able to dual-boot into macOS. Everything else are small steps with the intent of postponing the ability to run a full-blown OS on the device.
Incidentally, you can run Chrome on the iPad if it can run macOS.
> and the best extensions are made for Chrome on desktop.
Note that Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions either, especially no adblockers.
> People are voting and the vast majority like and chose to install Chrome
Is it really users voting when Chrome is the only browser that works with some websites?
Apple is the only thing standing in Chrome's way of becoming a global browser monopoly. The last time this has happened it was devastating for the web. The web is also way smaller than it is now.
? I'm absolutely for Apple opening up to allow other browsers, but for me Safari is at least fine. I use it for preference on macOS too, it's very resource-efficient.
Where does it fall down? Some of the later RFPs for web technology (bluetooth, battery level, etc) aren't supported but I think I agree more with Apple than some random web-app developer.
I’ve had the opposite experience; I’ve literally never seen anyone using Safari on a Mac. Even tech illiterate people always seem to end up with Chrome somehow.
Lol, no. An important reason for me to not use Safari is that it doesn't support uBlock Origin, 'tech illiterate people' rarely care about ad-blocking.
I used Firefox before safari because of uBlock Origin, but performance and battery life were big problems. There are ad blockers in Safari gives me the same end result as uBlock Origin.
Anecdotally, GSuite works a lot better on Chrome than any other browsers I've tried. Unsurprisingly companies opting for GSuite will see a larger share of chrome use, it might as well be preinstalled when handing down the computer or mandated at IT level when the intranet and other corporate SaaS is explicitely tested for chrome first.
This hasn't been true for a few years. When I bought my first iPhone a few years ago (the iPhone 12 in 2020), Safari indeed was a piece of junk. But starting the very next iteration cycle (iOS 14 or 15 I think) they fixed almost all the issues I had with it (tons of bugs, including rendering issues on some sites, but also quality of life features, like moving the URL bar at the bottom).
At first I used Safari because there was no other choice, today I use it because it's a decent browser and doesn't drain battery too much. Even if Firefox with Gecko or Chrome with Blink were available, I would stick with Safari.
If the browser release process and scheduling sucks, from a practical standpoint the browser also sucks.
I have a M1 laptop and one-before-last iphone SE that cannot open a ticketing website from a major global airline on Safari without an OS update. Irony being I can open the same website on all chromium browsers and firefox without an OS update.
If this is not a completely broken experience, I don't know what is.
The fact that site doesn't work on Safari but does on other browsers doesn't have to mean it's Safari that's bugging out here, it could just be junk code they developed while only testing on all those browsers -except Safari- until it worked on those.
Not a Safari issue in that case.
The website works on the Safari that comes with the latest OS. I can't update the Safari version without updating the OS with a 14GB update. Nevermind the extremely annoying hassle of having to backup the devices before the updates "just in case".
I don't have to do that for any non-Apple browser while using the same Apple laptop. [0]
I think it was the late and great Joe Armstrong who said, in a tongue-in-cheek remark on object oriented programming,
"You want a banana, but to get the banana you need the gorilla holding the banana and the [goddamn] rain forest it lives in." (brackets might be my frustrated addition.)
[0] there were other websites that would work seamlessly on other browsers but would throw security errors that disappeared after the OS update, including an email provider that is regular posted about on HN.
Apologies, I missed your point indeed. Thanks for clarifying. I agree the Safari browser release scheduling sucks, but still I think the owner of that website should make sure to cover older versions of browsers as well, up to a certain point. And if they can't - maybe even make a note available to its users (in a not invasive way) their browser might not be supported.
Yes, I agree these are lofty ideals to harbor. But I reserve them for when I'm drinking hot chocolate next to my non-existent fireplace in the comfort of my own home.
If you're sweating your socks off trying to get a plane ticket last minute on the go, someone telling you for whatever reason to update your OS can kindly fuck-off.
That's utter contempt for your users and a non-option pure and simple. The only real option is to hug and hold onto your non-Safari browser for dear life.
I use Safari on desktop and mobile particularly because private browsing doesn’t share sessions between tabs/windows whereas chrome does.
Somewhat niche yes but I loathe chrome for that behavior.
Is there a way to turn that off?
> Most developers put the majority of their effort to optimising their apps for the web and the best extensions are made for Chrome on desktop
Also, I’m guilty of this as a safari user, lol. My extension is available on Chrome + ForeFox but it’s too much of a pain to make a free extension for safari.
I happen to like Safari quite a lot (battery life, clean, fast/responsive UI, no shilling of Google services). I am dismayed at the direction Apple is heading as a company and I don't at all care for the way they market computing as a luxury product.
What frustrates me the most though is how aggressive and pervasive all the big tech companies have become. Attempts to regulate one seem to benefit another. In this case, regulations to force Apple to open up their platform walled gardens will primarily benefit Google and Meta. On the other hand, the regulations to rein in the latter companies (GDPR) seem to have largely failed and only serve to widen their moats with barriers to entry.
It honestly feels like we've spawned a multi-headed hydra and it's only going to grow more heads (LLMs?) as regulators struggle to keep up. Does anyone have any different ideas on how to solve this?
Atleast there is Safari. Safari is without a doubt better than Chrome - with Efficiency, Simplicity and Privacy. Chrome is spyware and bloated; even more than Chromium lmao
They recklessly add any random API with very little thought given to privacy and security. Which is why advertisers have been able to create browser fingerprinting that can be close to 99% accurate.
All cheered on by fools who think Safari and Firefox are stagnant by being more careful and pushing for standards.
What are you talking about? Safari is much better than chrome. Less spyware, MUCH faster, great customization, great tab/history sharing, better caching and much lower resource usage.
Literally the only problem is lack of thirdparty apps, but apart from a great downloader and adblocker I don’t really need much.
I don’t even want alternative stores, now my mother can download unverified apps from shady sources, before that was too difficult for her to do.
Given the standards are basically written because of chrom(ium) features I fail to see how that’s surprising. Firefox, which is literally a browser company, has twice as tests failings compared to chrome.
Yes, Safari has more failures, but I would not call it “stupidly behind.”
Safari is a decent browser and works well (I use it everyday professionally and personally and have next to no issues).
EDIT: I’d like to point there are a lot of “failures” I’m glad are actually not implemented in Safari (e.g. the accelerometer API should not exist in a browser, nor should the API to make my device vibrate, etc.).
Most likely, but like I said above, I’m glad for that.
> with the highest number of bugs by a huge margin
I don’t know… The last time I tried to use the web (I had no other choice) I had a bug in Firefox, which did not exist elsewhere…
My usage was the most basic there is. Literally showing a page w/o js.
As usual YMMV, but honestly I’m pretty sure most of the hate Safari gets is not deserved.
Safari would get no hate if you could freely replace it with other, more capable browsers. It's specifically Apple's attitude towards alternatives that highlights how utterly incapable Safari is.
I really don’t get this trend “it’s my device I should be able to do whatever I want with it.”
No! There’s literally absolutely no reasons why this should be true. As long as you’re not lied to and that the situation don’t change, you buy whatever you want, but don’t go complaining later that you cannot do what you want with what you bought.
Apple has always be very clear from the start: they have a closed ecosystem (which is being pried open by the EU currently, which I find baseless as per my previous §, and that I dislike very much as one of the reasons why I buy Apple devices is because of the close ecosystem, not despite it).
Being a closed ecosystem does not entitle you to imposing whatever harms you'd like on the market. If that were true, there would be no effective regulation of business - Microsoft would have just shrugged off the DOJ's suit against them. Netscape who?
You can feel however you want about it, your opinion as a customer is one of the last things considered when proving anticompetitive harm. No company ever, not the least of which being Apple, has ever escaped anticompetitive scrutiny for being "very clear from the start". If anything, it just goes to show how incapable and reluctant the US is when forced to regulate it's own domestic business.
I can't speak to anyone else, but the main reason I want Apple to be forced to actually compete with Safari is because it erases the murky charade of the modern browser market having any real competition whatsoever since in reality, it's been all Google for a long time now.
Apple is only relevant because they're anti-consumer by enforcing a platform monopoly. That shouldn't be the case for many other reasons and that's why they're identified as a Gatekeeper. Erasing the pretend of the browser market is a necessary sacrifice, although it's also a welcome one since it makes Google's behaviour impossible to defend and makes it obvious for all to see.
Mozilla gets big cuts from Google to exist as fake competition - without Google money they're probably unsustainable (especially since Mozilla is putting money anywhere but improving Firefox even though Firefox is also missing quite a few things).
Everyone else is using Chrome reskins and Google deliberately makes it difficult to make any Chrome fork stand out from others by making sure the codebase is put together in such a way where it's impossible to really differentiate a fork beyond some token UI reskins. (Just see how the response to WebManifest v3 getting forced is from all the Chrome reskins, where they admit they may not be able to keep v2 around. That's entirely because the Chrome source code is borderline impossible to keep a "nice fork" with.)
To put it as straightforward as possivle; I don't want an IE 2.0, I want Google dragged to trial for their behaviour on the browser market. If that means revealing that Chrome is an "IE 2.0" it's something I wouldn't mind. It's about the greater goal here, even if the first step is a painful acknowledgement of reality. Google's perverse incentive with Chrome needs to be more obvious and Apples fake competition by being anti-consumer makes that more difficult.
Safari has it's issues but Chrome isn't the pinnacle anymore, it's clear an enshitification is happening from the team who works on the wrapper UI.
- Dark patterns to trick you into Google Pay
- Those stupid sign in with your Google account dialogs you can't disable and make the website input glitch in weird ways, steal focus and I don't think they can even be dismissed with esc.
- The "Lens" sidebar
- Bimonthly popups about "themes" and "Ad Topics" dark patterns
- Copying console.logs is now broken in weird ways as of a few updates ago
Chrome is worth a separate investigation from the EU and others. Chrome is massively layer breaching with Google Service. There is a reason why chrome comes as Chrome and as Edge. Because both companies add stuff which no one wants there on top while cooperating on the thing we really want (the HTML, JS, engine).
I should really find a fork which is focused on not adding on top.
The iPad is such an amazing piece of hardware crippled by software in my opinion. My girlfriend has the first iPad Pro that came with an m1 and it's so well built. The screen and battery life are amazing, but I personally can't use it for anything apart from watching videos.
She uses it for drawing stuff in Procreate, and is pretty happy with it, but it feels like such a waste. The "desktop" experience is so bad that she also has a macbook pro for "real tasks". In reality, if the iPad wasn't so gimped by the software, she wouldn't need the macbook. I guess Apple realizes this, which is why they put in the limitations.
I really hope the end result is that Apple just ends up shipping OSX on the iPad pros instead of iOS. Highly unlikely, but a man can dream.
Yup. I liked my 2017 iPad Pro, hardware as decent and I mostly enjoyed the UI at the time but a lot of my work was simply impossible to do because of Apple's arbitrary software bullshit. I tried working around it by logging into my desktop at home but that was flakey and annoying for a number of reasons (sometimes WiFi networks would block the ports, sometimes I needed to see something not viewable over text, etc.).
The iPad accessory ecosystem is also just ridiculously overpriced. $200+ to $300+ for a keyboard/mouse combo that will if you're lucky will maybe work on the next model you upgrade to and only works with a single device is insane. Then the stylus is $130 more. They make the MS Surface accessories look cheap.
I don't want OS X on the iPad. I genuinely think that would be a bad experience but they do need to not cripple iPadOS.
Apple argued they are separate platforms, and got around the EU requirements with that. So there are no third-party app stores and browser engines on the iPad available yet. Until now, that is.
They were the same system, but iPadOS has seen quite a few updates that were specific to iPadOS in recent years and didn't get all of the iOS updates. Therefore I would say that they are different systems, even if they stem from the same system similar to how different Linux distributions are different operating systems even though they have lots of similarities.
I think it's the application store that matters, and ipads can run iOS apps just fine with some zooming/scaling issues. There's even a single checkbox you pick before uploading to make your software available to it as well as iOS.
A linux distro produce different deliverable medias for server, desktop and mobile use, as well as for different architectures. That doesn't mean the OS is not the same.
This is tangentially related, I guess, but older iPads essentially rendered useless. I have an iPad 2 that could absolutely be used for zoom calls, but the zoom software will not install because apple forces them to require a newer iPad. Whereas I have an old MacBook from 2013 that still works pretty good - AND I could put Linux on it if I wanted to..
I feel like that's an angle which isn't talked about much by the EU, all these mobile devices should work like normal computers so you can install anything you want on it.
Both for improving competition and reducing e-waste.
e-waste is indeed a valid angle. And extortion of customers (to buy new devices while the old one is still perfectly valid). I mean there is one thing to no longer patch devices but another one is to migrate products away from it.
Where did you get the information that "apple forces them to require a newer iPad"? This is not true: Apple doesn't force anyone to abandon older versions.
The only thing that they do and makes this unbearable is that they prevent downgrading devices (or having older simulators or older xcode on newer macs), so testing on older iOS versions is painful or even impossible. But they don't require you to abandon older versions in any code related stuff, you can use modern features and still support older iOS.
Last I interacted with appstore uploads, they had restrictions on features you could have in new IPAs you upload. Old versions do stick around though. (even if users can't download them if there are newer app versions)
Can Xcode 15/iOS 17 SDK still build 32 bit apps for iOS 9, and can you upload them? I'd be very impressed if so.
They require regular updates to the latest SDKs, which makes it nearly impossible to test to ensure your software is still compatible with old devices. The result is that it seems like many developers just drop support for devices they can't test against anymore. Of course sometimes there is a cool new feature in an updated iOS SDK that isn't supported by older devices, so that's another reason to drop support for them in an app. And if you pull in third-party software (facebook login integration, ad middleware, etc) that stuff may also 'move forward' by dropping old device support.
I'm not sure it makes sense to ding Apple for this in particular since support for old Android devices is similarly bad on Google's store.
While I think it's the right outcome, the reasoning from the EC is horrifying. The real problem is that iPadOS was never a separate platform in the first place, and should have been grouped with iOS. The EC could just have ruled on that.
Instead they seemed to have accepted Apple's fiction about these being separate platforms, and then to get the outcome they wanted they just ignored the own inclusion thresholds. Look, the EC set these thresholds. They had years to review those thresholds. And the moment they produce an outcome the EC didn't want, they just go "lol, the threshold was never 45M users, it's actually about being 'close to 45M users'". Will everyone now be judged on the basis of being pretty close to the threshold, or was that a one off for Apple? What even counts as "close"? Are we talking 40M? 30M? 20M?
>"An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if [...] it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future."
iPadOS being close to the threshold with forecasted growth seems to very much fall in line with the DMA.
So, again, why isn't Spotify a gatekeeper at this point? This ruling shows that the quantitative thresholds are pure fiction (which was the old justification for leaving them out).
Spotify has clearly an entrenched and durable position (the government of England formally declared them a monopoly)... and they are using their market power to strong-arm others: Look at all the Spotify-only or Spotify-first streaming playback devices (Teslas, for starters). They pay massively lower rates to artists than other streamers (like Apple Music) for another example. As for consumer harm, I seem to hear nothing but complaints from friends about Spotify's latest AI-generated playlists and poor user interface... those again speak to entrenched and durable market power.
It really makes me question whether Europe has such low rates of corruption as everyone says.
Because Spotify is not abusing their position as a platform holder to create unfair terms for their competitors.
> As for consumer harm, I seem to hear nothing but complaints from friends about Spotify's latest AI-generated playlists and poor user interface...
That's not market harm, that's a bad product. If you're particularly upset from Spotify's behavior, there are no shortage of competing alternative services you can entirely replace it with.
Think about all the formerly-free-now-paywalled talk show podcasts users are missing out on because Spotify can't offer in app subscriptions without paying their primary technology provider a fee for developing all the hardware and software users use to consume their service.
> Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
C'mon EU! This is as bullshit as the US's TikTok ban justification.
Apparently they define a threshold but then use a number that doesn't reach said threshold as justification to take action. We're not talking about troops massed on a border here: if they defined a threshold for action they should not then use it to justify action when the target hasn't been reached yet.
Regardless if you agree or disagree on the EU's position, it's hard to support the rule of law when it's explicitly arbitrary like this.
> Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.
This, on the other hand, made me laugh: business users are locked into a platform because it's the only place they can play games?
Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C yet even though you tick a bunch of other boxes and are nearing that temperature anyways? The thresholds are meant to be a cap, not a floor, and that's perfectly easy to support. Also worth noting it takes ~half a year for things to get going so if you wait until the exact moment to start things that's ~half a year the law would be ineffective at its goal.
The quote about businesses and gaming is in reference to businesses as the producers of apps trying to reach customers, not as the consumer themselves.
> Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C
I think that's the wrong metaphor. Regulation functions well when it is 1 - clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied and 2 - conservative, in the sense of being a bit "behind the times". By this I don't mean reactive.
There are cases when those approaches can't be followed, for example when you see an army being built up on a border, medical cases (not just the one you cite, which isn't a regulation, but drug approval) and other incipient life-threatening cases. But those cases are messy, often wrong (but with a risk vs cost profile that makes it worth doing), and often controversial.
But this is simply an ipad. The kind of metaphor I think of is I'll speed at 120 km/h when my passenger is bleeding profusely, but if I'm late to a contract negotiation, well, I still have to drive the speed limit. A sense of arbitrariness discourages compliance with the rules.
Consider the EU ETS. They already had an example to follow (the north american SO2 trading scheme), had the emissions and other data, and it is indeed an issue killing people. But they took the time to make sure it was right, and it works great, a little grumbling aside. At the end of the day the ipad is even less than that, and so clarity and consistency serves the wider goal.
Yet if you drive recklessly at 110 you can still be in trouble over for what is deemed dangerous or aggressive driving despite the speed limit being 120. Law isn't (and shouldn't) just be clear cut objective criteria, real life is more complicated than that. Again, the difference between a hard cap and a floor - you can't go over 120 but that doesn't mean if you go 110 there should be no other criteria for you breaking the law.
That's not banning, that's a security measure working. In Google the stories are of specifically getting banned for violating T&C or something https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016389, not getting locked out. And if you are locked out you can go to Apple Store or call support, tried that with Google?
I'm not from EU but EU people from EU countries are usually eager to tell me that the government works for powerful commercial interests. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple refused to play by their rules while Google accepted it.
Otherwise it's hard to see why they create a law that basically specifically discriminates against Apple
Safari is just a piece of junk. The only reason it has any marketshare at all on iOS and iPadOS is because Apple is being anticompetitive and doesn't have to compete with Google. When they do have to compete on MacOS, guess what. People are voting and the vast majority like and chose to install Chrome. Apple users claim Chrome users don't know any better and Safari is so much better but that's the argument Android and Windows users like to make about Apple users in general so that argument is moot.